In the notice dated September 9, 2014, a copy of which isavailable at http://is.gd/hA7Kiufrom Leagle.com, Judge Alsup ordered the parties' counsel to review the Procedural Guidance forClass Action Settlements, which is available on the website forthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia at www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.He added that counsel should review these substantive and timingfactors that will be considered in determining whether to grantpreliminary and/or final approval to a proposed class settlement:

1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION2. DUE DILIGENCE3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS4. THE RELEASE5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS6. REVERSION7. CLAIM PROCEDURE8. ATTORNEY'S FEES9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

APPLE INC: Appeals Court Revives iPhone 3G Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a statecourt of appeal has resurrected allegations that Apple Inc.falsely claimed its iPhone 3G was "twice as fast" as the earliermodel.

The lower court erred when it dismissed the false advertisingclass action because the complaint did not also target AT&TMobility, the network carrier for the iPhone 3G, a Sixth DistrictCourt of Appeal panel unanimously ruled on Sept. 12.

The decision is a major victory for plaintiffs, as it means Applecan't take shelter in AT&T's formidable arbitration agreement andclass arbitration waiver. That waiver became famous in 2011 asthe basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in AT&TMobility v. Concepcion.

Apple's lawyers at Morrison & Foerster had argued the iPhone'sspeed is directly tied to its network, making AT&T anindispensable party to the litigation. The appellate paneldisagreed.

Even if AT&T shared some fault for the iPhone 3G's performance, itis not required that all involved parties be named as defendantsin a single lawsuit, Justice Miguel Marquez wrote.

"Apple does not claim, and cannot claim, that findings or rulingsin this action would have any preclusive effect on [AT&T],"Justice Miguel Marquez wrote. "The mere possibility of unfavorableevidentiary findings is insufficient to require joinder."

"If the court accepted Apple's argument, it would paralyzelitigation within the state of California," Mr. Stranch said."For example, any litigation over whether a car reached thepromised miles per gallon . . . would require naming every gasstation that the person bought gas at."

Ingrid Van Zant sued Apple for false advertising in Santa ClaraCounty in 2010, after she compared her iPhone 3G with her oldiPhone 2G and found they performed at the same speed.

Last year, Santa Clara Judge James Kleinberg, now retired, orderedMs. Van Zant to add AT&T as a defendant. Her lawyers refused,arguing they could not do so in good faith because they believedthe network provider had done nothing wrong, according to theSixth District opinion.

The iPhone 3G failed to live up to its promised speed because ofinternal hardware and software flaws, not because of any fault inthe AT&T network, according to Ms. Van Zant's lawyers withBranstetter, Stranch & Jennings and San Francisco firm AltshulerBerzon.

Ms. Van Zant's claims followed a spate of federal suitscoordinated as multidistrict litigation before former U.S.District Chief Judge James Ware. Following Concepcion, Judge Wareordered that federal claims against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone3G's speed be resolved through individual arbitration.

But Justice Marquez faulted Judge Kleinberg for relying tooheavily on the federal court proceedings to concludeMs. Van Zant's claims should also be brought jointly against Appleand AT&T.

"The trial court attached undue significance to the pleadings andrulings in the MDL proceedings," Justice Marquez wrote. "Contraryto Apple's assertion, Van Zant's complaint departed from the MDLallegations in several important ways."

Judge Alsup ordered the parties to review the Procedural Guidancefor Class Action Settlements, which is available on the websitefor the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia at www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.In addition, he said, counsel should review these substantive andtiming factors that will be considered in determining whether togrant preliminary and/or final approval to a proposed classsettlement:

1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION2. DUE DILIGENCE3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS4. THE RELEASE5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS6. REVERSION7. CLAIM PROCEDURE8. ATTORNEY'S FEES9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

A copy of the notice dated September 9, 2014, is available athttp://is.gd/eIq94Pfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant Bank of America filed the motion to dismiss pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Bank ofAmerica moved alternatively to transfer the action to the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkpursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

"Because Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate that hehas standing to bring this suit, this Court grants Defendant'smotion to dismiss," wrote Judge Wigenton in an opinion datedSeptember 8, 2014, a copy of which is available athttp://is.gd/3nkbFYfrom Leagle.com.

MARK LEYSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

BIOSCRIP INC: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Completed in July-------------------------------------------------------------BioScrip, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the SecuritiesClass Action Litigation in the Southern District of New York.

On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuitwas filed against the Company and certain of its officers onbehalf of the putative class of purchasers of the Company'ssecurities between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013,inclusive.

On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuitwas filed against the Company and certain of its directors andofficers and certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of theputative class of purchasers of the Company's securities betweenAugust 8, 2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive.

On December 19, 2013, the United States District Court for theSDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuitsand appointing a lead plaintiff. The Company denies anyallegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class actionlawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint onFebruary 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directorsand officers, certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certainstockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is broughton behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company'ssecurities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013,inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company'ssecurities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten publicofferings of the Company's common stock conducted in April 2013,and August 2013. The consolidated complaint alleges generally thatthe defendants made material misstatements and/or failed todisclose matters related the Legacy Division's distribution of theMedication as well as the Company's PBM Services segment. Theconsolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theExchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. All defendantsin the case moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April28, 2014. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete on July28, 2014.

The Company believes all of the claims in these class actionlawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defendagainst these claims. However, there is no assurance that theCompany will be successful in its defense or that insurance willbe available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or thelitigation costs of these actions. Additional similar lawsuits maybe filed. Moreover, the Company is not able to predict the outcomeor reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

The Company is a national provider of infusion and home caremanagement solutions.

Judge Smith, in order and opinion dated September 9, 2014, a copyof which is available at http://is.gd/DRg7DIfrom Leagle.com, concluded that the Court is exercising its discretion to declinejurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section1332(d)(3).

BP SOLAR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended "Allagas" Case----------------------------------------------------------------MICHAEL ALLAGAS, ARTHUR RAY, AND BRETT MOHRMAN, et al.,Plaintiffs, v. BP SOLAR INTERNATIONAL INC., HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,INC., AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 14-00560 SI,(N.D. Cal.) is a purported class action that was initially filedin Contra Costa County Superior Court on January 8, 2014, and wasremoved by defendants to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California on February 16, 2014. On February27, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'complaint, which the Court granted in part and denied in part,with leave to amend. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on May23, 2014. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss theplaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and defendants' motion tostrike plaintiffs' class allegations.

District Judge Susan Illston, in an order dated September 8, 2014,a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/2GvtLLfrom Leagle.com, denied the motion to dismiss and motion to strike.

Accordingly, on September 9, 2014, District Judge Susan RichardNelson ruled that the Defendant's objections are sustained in partand overruled in part, and the Court adopts the R&R in part.

The collective action is conditionally certified as: All currentand former hourly-paid restaurant employees of Chipotle MexicanGrill, Inc. who were employed at Chipotle's Crystal, Minnesotarestaurant and, on or after April 10, 2011, were automaticallypunched off the clock by the Aloha timekeeping system at 12:30a.m. and continued to work, or who otherwise worked "off theclock" during closing shifts, resulting in nonpayment of regularwages or overtime wages.

A copy of Judge Nelson's memorandum opinion and order is availableat http://is.gd/1VMukXfrom Leagle.com.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalledproduct should be thrown out or returned to the store where theywere purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiledbut can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, theelderly and people with weakened immune systems may contractserious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people mayexperience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complicationsmay include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a foodsafety investigation, which may lead to the recall of otherproducts. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA willnotify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled productfrom the marketplace.

CONTANGO OIL: Defending Against Class Suits Over Crimson Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Contango Oil & Gas Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in connection with theCrimson Exploration Inc. ("Crimson"), several class actionlawsuits have been brought by Crimson stockholders in DelawareChancery Court seeking damages and injunctive relief including,among other things, compensatory damages and costs anddisbursements relating to the lawsuits. Various combinations ofthe Company, certain subsidiaries of the Company, members ofCrimson's pre-merger board of directors, members of Crimson's pre-merger management team and Oaktree Capital Management L.P. havebeen named as defendants in these lawsuits.

The Delaware lawsuits have been consolidated into a single actionreferred to as In Re: Crimson Exploration Inc. StockholderLitigation; C.A. 8541-VCP. Additionally, on July 13, 2013, aseparate and similar complaint was filed in the District Court ofHarris County Texas, in the matter of Fisichella Family Trust v.Crimson Exploration Inc. It is possible that additional similarlawsuits may be filed.

The merger-related lawsuits allege, among other things, thatCrimson's board of directors failed to take steps to obtain a fairprice, failed to properly value Crimson, failed to protect againstalleged conflicts of interest, failed to conduct a reasonablyinformed evaluation of whether the transaction was in the bestinterests of stockholders, failed to fully disclose all materialinformation to stockholders, acted in bad faith and for impropermotives, engaged in self-dealing, discouraged other strategicalternatives, took steps to avoid competitive bidding, and agreedto allegedly unreasonable deal protection mechanisms, includingthe no-shop, fiduciary-out provisions and termination fee. Thelawsuits also allege that Contango and certain other defendantsaided and abetted the other defendants in violating duties to theCrimson stockholders. The known plaintiffs in these lawsuitscollectively owned a very small percentage of the totaloutstanding shares of Crimson common stock at the time of theMerger, which was approved by Contango's pre-merger shareholders(89% of outstanding shares and 99% of voted shares were voted infavor of the Merger) and Crimson's pre-merger shareholders (69% ofoutstanding shares and 88% of voted shares were voted in favor ofthe Merger).

The Company believes that these merger-related lawsuits arewithout merit and is contesting them vigorously.

CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Suit v. Hyundai------------------------------------------------------------Convergys Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November 2011, oneof the Company's call center clients, Hyundai Motor America("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual indemnity claim to ConvergysCustomer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of the Company,relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock,individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarlysituated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange CountySuperior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC.The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai violated California's telephonerecording laws by recording telephone calls with customer servicerepresentatives without providing a disclosure that the callsmight be recorded.

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. is not named as adefendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination asto whether Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. will berequired to indemnify Hyundai.

The Company believes Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. hasmeritorious defenses to Hyundai's demand for indemnification andalso believes there are meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claimsin the lawsuit.

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 29, 2014,Hyundai, Plaintiff and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc.agreed in principle to settle the lawsuit. The agreement inprinciple is subject to execution of a formal settlement agreementand approval by the Court.

As a result of the agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit,the Company accrued a liability that is representative of the bestestimate of the loss expected to be incurred with the resolutionof Hyundai's contractual indemnity claim. The ultimate resolutionof the indemnity claim is not expected to have a material impacton the Company's liquidity, results of operations or financialcondition.

Convergys Corporation is a global leader in customer management,focused on bringing value to our clients through every customerinteraction.

Affected products: 250 ml. Star Guava Drink with all codes wheresulphites are not declared on the label

DENDREON CORPORATION: Class Action Over PROVENGE in Discovery-------------------------------------------------------------Dendreon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company and threeformer officers are named defendants in a securities actionpending in the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington (the "District Court") and brought by agroup of individual investors who elected to opt out of asecurities class action lawsuit that was settled in August 2013.The pending action, filed May 16, 2013, is captioned ChristophBolling, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company madevarious false or misleading statements between April 29, 2010 andAugust 3, 2011 concerning the Company, its finances, businessoperations and prospects with a focus on the market launch ofPROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, andrevenue from sales of PROVENGE.

Based on information provided informally by plaintiffs' counsel,the plaintiff group, which totals approximately 30 persons,purports to have purchased approximately 250,000 shares ofDendreon common stock during the relevant period. The Bollingplaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 16, 2013, allegingboth violations of certain provisions of the federal SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and provisions of Washington state law andseeking unspecified damages.

In response to a motion by defendants, the federal claims weredismissed with leave to amend in January 2014.

On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaintwhich defendants moved to dismiss on March 24, 2014. Afterbriefing, the District Court, by order dated June 5, 2014, againdismissed the federal claims, but denied the motion as to theplaintiffs' Washington state law claims for fraudulent andnegligent misrepresentation. The case is now in the discoveryphase.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation; however, theCompany intends to continue defending against claims vigorously,"the Company said.

Dendreon Corporation is a biotechnology company focused on thediscovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeuticsthat may significantly improve cancer treatment options forpatients.

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued in Madison County Over Hip Implants------------------------------------------------------------The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a McLean County woman issuing in Madison County over allegations she was implanted with ahip replacement product that doctors knew was defective.

According to the complaint, Ms. Owen underwent a hip replacementprocedure and was fitted with a DePuy XL Acetabular System, orASR. She says the manufacturers and surgeons who suggested sheuse an ASR promoted the system as being safe and effective for hipreplacements. Ms. Owen says they failed to disclose a history ofmounting problems that had allegedly caused the product to fail inother patients.

Ms. Owen contends the defendants knew the hip replacement productsthey were manufacturing, selling or implanting were defective andlikely to break or malfunction and cause patients significantinjury. She alleges they knew of the dangers but have failed towarn consumers. As a result, Owen says she agreed to use the hipimplant that eventually failed and caused her serious injuries.

Ms. Owen accuses the defendants of negligence, strict liability,intentional infliction of emotional distress and failure to warn.She says they also violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Sheseeks more than $300,000 in damages from each of the defendants tocompensate for lost wages, medical costs, pain and suffering,mental anguish and disfigurement.

EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger Suits in Massachusetts--------------------------------------------------------------Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that between April28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class action lawsuitswere filed by purported stockholders of the Company in theBusiness Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court,Suffolk County, against the Company, EB Sub, the members of theCompany's board of directors and Old Epirus. These actions are:Paul Patrick Laky v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1380;Michael Ma v. Zalicus Inc., et al ., Civ. A. No. 14-1381; DianeHarrypersaud v. Zalicus Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 14-1455(collectively, the "Massachusetts Actions").

On May 21, 2014, plaintiffs Michael Ma and Diane Harrypersaudfiled a consolidated amended complaint. The Massachusetts Actionsallege that the Company's board of directors breached itsfiduciary duties, and that Old Epirus, the Company and EB Subaided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with theproposed Merger. The Massachusetts Actions seek relief including,among other things, to enjoin defendants from proceeding with theMerger, to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger unlessadditional procedures are implemented and rescind the Merger ifconsummated (or to award rescissionary damages), an award ofcompensatory damages, and an award of all costs of theMassachusetts Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees andexperts' fees.

On July 15, 2014, EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly knownas Zalicus Inc., a Delaware corporation completed its merger withthe former entity EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delawarecorporation and private company ("Old Epirus"), pursuant to theterms of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger andReorganization (as amended, the "Merger Agreement"), dated as ofApril 15, 2014, by and among the Company, Old Epirus and EB Sub,Inc. ("EB Sub"), formerly known as BRunning, Inc., a Delawarecorporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the"Merger").

The Company is a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused onimproving patient access to important biopharmaceuticals bydeveloping, manufacturing, and commercializing biosimilartherapeutics, or biosimilars, in targeted geographies worldwide.

EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Delaware Actions Over Merger-------------------------------------------------------------Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that between May 1,2014, and May 16, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits werefiled by purported stockholders of the Company in the Court ofChancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, EB Sub, themembers of the Company's board of directors and Old Epirus. Theseactions are: Harvey Stein v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No. 9602;Tuan Do v. Zalicus, Inc. et al., Case No. 9636; and Sy SimchaMendlowitz and Bennet Mattingly v. Zalicus, Inc., et al., Case No.9664 (collectively, the "Delaware Actions"). On May 23, 2014,plaintiff Harvey Stein filed a verified amended complaint, and onMay 27, 2014, plaintiff Tuan Do filed a verified amendedcomplaint.

The Delaware Actions allege that the Company's board of directorsbreached its fiduciary duties, and that Old Epirus and EB Subaided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with theproposed Merger. The Delaware Actions seek relief including, amongother things, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the proposedMerger, to enjoin consummation of the proposed Merger and rescindthe Merger if consummated (or to award rescissionary damages), anaward of compensatory damages, and an award of all costs of theDelaware Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees andexperts' fees.

On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware Actions fileda motion seeking to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing inadvance of the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger, andseeking expedited discovery in advance of that hearing. OldEpirus, the Company, and the individual defendants opposed themotion. After a hearing, on June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court ofChancery denied plaintiffs' motion.

On July 15, 2014, EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly knownas Zalicus Inc., a Delaware corporation completed its merger withthe former entity EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delawarecorporation and private company ("Old Epirus"), pursuant to theterms of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger andReorganization (as amended, the "Merger Agreement"), dated as ofApril 15, 2014, by and among the Company, Old Epirus and EB Sub,Inc. ("EB Sub"), formerly known as BRunning, Inc., a Delawarecorporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the"Merger").

The Company is a commercial-stage biotechnology company focused onimproving patient access to important biopharmaceuticals bydeveloping, manufacturing, and commercializing biosimilartherapeutics, or biosimilars, in targeted geographies worldwide.

FIRST NATIONAL: "Antonik" Action in Discovery Stage---------------------------------------------------First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, thatSteven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate ofLinda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalfof themselves and others similarly situated, filed on August 13,2013, a consumer protection class action against the Company andBank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seekingequitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an allegedpattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to therepossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'financed motor vehicles. This matter is in the discovery stage.At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcomeor potential range of loss.

The Company is in the business of providing customary retail andcommercial banking services to individuals and businesses withinits primary market located in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Action in Discovery Phase------------------------------------------------First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, thatCharles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated filed on September 17, 2013, a consumer classaction against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of CommonPleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform CommercialCode in connection with the repossession and resale of financedvehicles. This matter is in the discovery stage. At this timethe Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potentialrange of loss.

The Company is in the business of providing customary retail andcommercial banking services to individuals and businesses withinits primary market located in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Class: All persons who are and/or were employed as overtime-eligible employees by GameStop, in one or more of GameStop'sCalifornia retail stores, between June 21, 2010 and June 30, 2012.SM Subclass: Class Members who held the position of Store Manageror SM, Store Manager in Training or SMIT, and Area Manager or AMduring the Class Period.

ASM Subclass: Class Members who held the position of AssistantStore Manager or ASM during the Class Period.

SGA Subclass: Class Members who held the position of Senior GameAdvisor or SGA during the Class Period.

GA Subclass: Class Members who held the position of Game Advisoror GA and Lead Game Advisor or LGA during the Class Period.

Former SM Subclass: Class Members whose employment with Game Stopterminated during the Class Period while holding the position ofStore Manager or SM, Store Manager in Training or SMIT, or AreaManager or AM.

Former ASM Subclass: Class Members whose employment with GameStopterminated during the Class Period while holding the position ofAssistant Store Manager or ASM.

Former SGA Subclass: Class Members whose employment with GameStopterminated during the Class Period while holding the position ofSenior Game Advisor or SGA.

Former GA Subclass: Class Members whose employment with GameStopterminated during the Class Period while holding the position ofGame Advisor or GA and Lead Game Advisor or LGA.

The Court held that Scott Cole & Associates, APC may act as ClassCounsel.

Potential incorrect installation of overhead video monitor ifmounting screws are missing. This may increase risk of monitorbecoming disengaged from mounting tray and falling which couldresult in injury.

GEL SPICE: Recalls 3.53 oz Fresh Finds Brand Ground Black Pepper----------------------------------------------------------------Gel Spice Company, Inc., of Bayonne, NJ, is issuing a voluntaryrecall notice for 16,443 cases of Fresh Finds-Ground Black Pepper,3.53 oz, plastic jars, because it has the possibility to becontaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause seriousand sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderlypeople, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy personsinfected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (whichmay be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rarecircumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in theorganism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severeillnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),endocarditis and arthritis.

There are 16,443 cases of the recalled product sold in 3.53oz.(100 g) plastic jars with Best By Dates of 6/30/17, 7/01/17,7/02/17, 7/22/17, and 7/23/17 with the Fresh Finds brand labelwith UPC Code 4 11010 98290 1 is sold exclusively at Big LotsRetail Stores, Inc. The Best By dates are printed on the neck ofthe bottle above the label.

There have been no reported illnesses related to this product todate.

The recall was issued as the result of sampling by the FDA whichrevealed that the finished products contained the bacteria.

If you have the recalled product, please dispose of the product.No other size container or best by dates of Fresh Finds GroundBlack Pepper are affected by this recall.

GENTIVA HEALTH: Mediation Held in "Rindfleisch" Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------Global mediation was conducted in the Rindfleisch lawsuit, GentivaHealth Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitledLisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filedin the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York against the Company in which five former employees("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations. The formeremployees claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourlybasis, thereby voiding their exempt status and entitling them toovertime pay. Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of federaland state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor StandardsAct ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law and NorthCarolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").

On October 8, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion totransfer the venue of the lawsuit to the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 13, 2011, theCourt granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification ofthe FLSA claims as a collective action.

On May 26, 2011, the Court bifurcated the FLSA portion of the suitinto a liability phase, in which discovery closed on January 15,2013, and a potential damages phase, to be scheduled pendingoutcome of the liability phase.

Following a motion for partial summary judgment by the Companyregarding the New York state law claims, Plaintiffs agreedvoluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing on December 12,2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a NorthCarolina state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012.

On August 29, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion forcertification of a North Carolina state law class. The Companyfiled a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claimsunder the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted onJanuary 16, 2013.

On February 14, 2013, the Company filed two motions for partialsummary judgment with regard to the Company's liability forPlaintiffs' FLSA claims. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed amotion for partial summary judgment in their favor with regard tothe Company's liability.

On July 26, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion forsummary judgment with regard to the Company's liability forPlaintiffs' FLSA claims and granted Plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment. On November 4, 2013, the Court denied the Company'smotion to amend the District Court's July 26 Order to certify twolegal issues for immediate interlocutory appeal to the EleventhCircuit Court of Appeals. In its Order, the Court established a30-day deadline for the Company to file its motion fordecertification of the FLSA collective action class, which theCompany then filed on December 4, 2013.

On April 18, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting theCompany's motion for decertification and dismissing the opt-inplaintiffs from the lawsuit without prejudice. On the same day,Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Court's Order to delay theeffective date of the dismissal of the opt-in plaintiffs' claimsfor 60 days, until June 17, 2014. On May 8, 2014, the Courtentered an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend, therebyextending the effective date of dismissal through June 17, 2014.

On June 17, 2014, approximately 194 of the former 999 opt-inplaintiffs who had been dismissed from this case filed a newComplaint against the Company in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Georgia as a separate, follow-onlawsuit with identical claims captioned Cynthia Bailey et al. v.Gentiva Health Services, Inc. These were some of the individualswho had been dismissed from the Rindfleisch lawsuit and who wishedto continue to pursue their claims.

Given the filing of the follow-on lawsuit, at the June 19, 2014settlement conference in respect of the Rindfleisch lawsuit, itwas determined that this case would be stayed and administrativelyclosed pending the outcome of global mediation of both lawsuits,which was scheduled for September 12, 2014.

Because of this, the trial date that had been scheduled for Julywas reset. Accordingly, on June 24, 2014, the District Judgeadministratively closed this case.

If there is no settlement which resolves all issues in theRindfleisch lawsuit as a result of the September 12 mediation,this lawsuit will be re-opened upon the request of either party,so long as the request is made within 90 days of the September 12,2014 mediation.

Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are seeking attorneys' fees, back wagesand liquidated damages going back three years from the filing ofthe complaint under the FLSA.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home healthservices, hospice services and community care services servingpatients through approximately 500 locations in 40 states.

GENTIVA HEALTH: June 2015 Status Conference in "Wilkie" Action--------------------------------------------------------------A status conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, in the"Wilkie" class action, Gentiva Health Services, Inc. said in itsForm 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitledCatherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofCalifornia against the Company in which a former employee allegedwage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. Thecomplaint alleged that the Company paid some of its employees onboth a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exemptstatus and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint furtheralleged that California employees were subject to violations ofstate laws requiring meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, accuratewage statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff soughtclass certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties anddamages going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years onthe state wage and hour claims.

The Company denies the plaintiff's allegations but, following aMarch 2012 mediation, agreed to pay a total settlement amount of$5 million to settle the collective and class action claims.

The federal district court granted final approval of thesettlement on March 26, 2013, and funds were disbursed to theparticipating class members, 99 percent of whom timely negotiatedtheir settlement checks. The unclaimed wages will escheat to theState of California, and any balance remaining will be distributedto a cy pres beneficiary at the conclusion of the escheat process.

A status conference is scheduled for June 22, 2015, at which timethe parties will present a final accounting of the settlementfund, and the court is expected to approve distribution of theresidual to the cy pres beneficiary and dismiss the case.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home healthservices, hospice services and community care services servingpatients through approximately 500 locations in 40 states.

GENTIVA HEALTH: Securities Class Action in Preliminary Stage------------------------------------------------------------Between November 2, 2010 and October 25, 2011, five shareholderclass actions were filed against Gentiva Health Services, Inc. andcertain of its current and former officers and directors in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.Each of these actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") inconnection with the Company's participation in the Medicare HomeHealth Prospective Payment System ("HH PPS"). Followingconsolidation of the actions and the appointment of Los AngelesCity Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff, on April 16,2012, a consolidated shareholder class action complaint, captionedIn re Gentiva Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064,was filed in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of New York.

The complaint, which named Gentiva and certain current and formerofficers and directors as defendants, asserted claims underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Sections 11and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), inconnection with the Company's participation in the HH PPS. Thecomplaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's publicdisclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Companyimproperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits topatients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement ratesunder the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in theprice of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31,2008 and October 4, 2011.

On June 15, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint. On March 25, 2013, the court granted defendants' motionto dismiss with leave to amend the complaint in accordance withthe court's rulings as set forth in its March 25 order.

On May 10, 2013, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended classaction complaint, and, on June 24, 2013, defendants filed a motionto dismiss. On September 19, 2013, the court granted in part anddenied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

As a result of the court's decision, the named current officersand directors were dismissed from the action, and certain claimsagainst Gentiva and a former officer and a former officer/directorremained. On October 3, 2013, the remaining defendants moved forpartial reconsideration of the court's September 19 order.

On December 10, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in partthe remaining defendants' motion for partial reconsideration. As aresult of the court's decision, Gentiva and the former officerwere dismissed from the action, and only a Section 10(b) claimagainst the former officer/director remains.

On January 9, 2014, the former officer/director filed an answer tothe consolidated amended class action complaint. On January 28,2014, lead plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of finaljudgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On March 3, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in partlead plaintiff's motion under Rule 54(b), granting the motion tothe extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment for the claimsbrought pursuant to the 1933 Act as to all defendants, and denyingthe motion to the extent lead plaintiff sought final judgment forthe claims brought pursuant to the 1934 Act as to all defendantsother than the former officer/director.

As a result of the court's decision, on March 6, 2014, the courtentered final judgment in favor of all defendants on leadplaintiff's claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unableto assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,arising from the action on the business, financial condition,results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of theCompany. The Company does not believe that an estimate of areasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for theaction at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselvesvigorously in the action.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. is a provider of home healthservices, hospice services and community care services servingpatients through approximately 500 locations in 40 states.

GOODYEAR TIRE: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set for Dec. 5---------------------------------------------------------DAVID HELMER, FELICIA MUFTIC, and MICHAEL MUFTIC, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., an Ohio corporation, Defendant,CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-00685-RBJ, (D. Col.) is before the Court onthe plaintiffs' motion to provide notice to potential classmembers. The parties have conferred on a proposed notice andnotice plan, but defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. stillobjects to certain portions of the notice and plan. ThePlaintiffs contend that Goodyear has no standing to object at thisstage of the proceedings, and they also offer substantive reasonswhy Goodyear's objections are misplaced.

District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, in an amended order datedSeptember 9, 2014, a copy of which is available athttp://is.gd/fdVsvjfrom Leagle.com, granted the Plaintiff's motion with certain modifications.

The recall involves Homelite and Earthwise cordless 24 Voltbattery and 20 Amp electric lawn mowers. The mowers have a 20-inch (51-centimetre) cutting width and come with a 3-in-1 sidedischarge/mulch/bagger. The brand names "Homelite" or"Earthwise", "3 in 1" and "20"" appear on the front of the mowers.

If the mower handle is collapsed for storage, the starting cablecan be stretched to a point in which the starting mechanism willbe engaged and the mower can start without the key in place,posing a risk of injury to the user.

Great States Corporation has received three incident reports inCanada, in which one report documented the amputation of threefinger tips.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidentsor injuries related to the use of these mowers.

There were 394 Homelite lawn mowers sold at Home Depot stores and137 Earthwise lawn mowers sold at Federated Co-op stores acrossCanada.

The recalled lawn mowers were manufactured in China and soldbetween Feb. 2014 and August 2014.

Companies:

Manufacturer YAT Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. Jiaxing China

Distributor Great States Corporation Shelbyville Indiana United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn mowersand remove the battery. Do not collapse the mower for storageunless the battery has been removed. Consumers can contact theGreat States Corporation for a full refund.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Sept. 26 Hearing on Class Action Settlement------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif., on Sept. 15 approved a$57 million class action settlement for shareholders of Hewlett-Packard Co. who sued after the company halted plans for a mobileoperating system.

The hearing came as lawyers in a separate shareholder case againstHP seek to restore a settlement after a federal judge in SanFrancisco rejected its unusual fee arrangement.

Gregg Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- a member of Motley Rice inMt. Pleasant, S.C., and Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com-- a partner at New York's Labaton Sucharow, are co-leadplaintiffs attorneys in the Santa Ana case.

"We are very gratified that the court approved the settlement,"Mr. Levin said via email. "We were pleased that we were able tosecure a result that provides significant recovery for classmembers."

HP attorney Robert Gooding -- rgooding@morganlewis.com -- apartner in the Irvine, Calif., office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,did not respond to a request for comment.

Shareholders alleged that former chief executive officerLeo Apotheker and two other executives made dozens of misleadingstatements about HP's plans to develop its own operating systemfor mobile phones after purchasing Palm Inc. for $1.2 billion in2010. The other executives named were R. Todd Bradley, executivevice president of the personal systems group until this year, andchief financial officer Catherine Lesjak, who served as interimchief executive officer before Mr. Apotheker.

In 2012, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford of the CentralDistrict of California dismissed the case but allowed theplaintiffs to amend their complaint. Last year, he allowed someof the revised claims to go forward against HP, Messrs. Apothekerand Bradley.

Mr. Apotheker's attorney, Gregory Weingart --Gregory.Weingart@mto.com -- a partner at Los Angeles-based MungerTolles & Olson, declined to comment, and Mr. Bradley's lawyer,Kevin Muck -- kmuck@fenwick.com -- chairman of the securitieslitigation group in the San Francisco office of Mountain View,Calif.'s Fenwick & West, did not respond to a request for comment.

In the San Francisco case, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ofthe Northern District of California last month rejected portionsof a settlement in a shareholder derivative case over HP's $11billion acquisition of Autonomy Inc. in 2011. The settlementincluded an arrangement by which HP would retain plaintiffslawyers at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, Calif., andSan Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to sue Autonomyexecutives.

INTERBAY FOOD: Recalls Pork Sausage Product Due to Misbranding--------------------------------------------------------------Interbay Food Company, LLC, a Woodinville, Wash., establishment,is recalling approximately 4,820 pounds of pork Banger-stylesausage products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen,the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and InspectionService (FSIS) announced. The products contain milk, a knownallergen, which is not declared on the products' label.

These products were subject to recall:

-- 1-lb. (5 links per package) Refrigerated packages of "The British Pantry Ltd., British Style Bangers"

-- 1-lb. (16 links per package) Refrigerated packages of "The British Pantry Ltd., British Style Bangers"

-- 5-lb. Logs of "The British Pantry Ltd., British Style Bangers"

The products were cooked in a Redmond, Wash., restaurant and soldto the general public. The products were produced using breadcrumbs that came from a vendor who listed wheat, soy and milk onthe label. Although the label for the bangers listed wheat andsoy, it did not list milk as an ingredient. The products wereproduced on March 17, 2014, March 24, 2014, May 5, 2014, June 2,2014, June 30, 2014, July 15, 2014, July 29, 2014, August 26, 2014and Sept. 8, 2014. The products' package codes are also itsproduction dates. The products bear the establishment number"Est. 6267" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and have a 6-monthshelf life.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector who saw that theproducts were incorrectly labeled.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactionsdue to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about areaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers. When available, the retail distributionlist(s) will be posted on the FSIS website.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contactRobert Petschl at (206) 612-7559 or via email at:rob.petschl@interbayfoods.com

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat andPoultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available inEnglish and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safetymessages are available 24 hours a day. The online ElectronicConsumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours aday at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

INTERSECTIONS INC: Ninth Circuit Upheld Dismissal of Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hasupheld the dismissal of a class action against IntersectionsInsurance Services Inc. and Bank of America, Intersections Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2014.

Intersections Insurance Services Inc. was served on May 21, 2012,with a putative class action complaint (filed on May 14, 2012)against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of Americain the United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia. The complaint alleges various claims based on the saleof an accidental death and disability program. IntersectionsInsurance Services Inc. and Bank of America moved to dismiss theclaims and to transfer the action to the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California. The motion totransfer to the Central District was granted, and IntersectionsInsurance Services Inc. and Bank of America then moved to dismissthe claims. The motions to dismiss were granted with prejudice onOctober 1, 2012. The plaintiffs appealed, and on June 24, 2014,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheldthe dismissal.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed inIllinois in Cook County Circuit Court against Intersections Inc.,Intersections Insurance Services Inc., and Ocwen FinancialCorporation, alleging violations of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act. The case was removed to the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. OnOctober 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation voluntarilydismissing, without prejudice, Intersections Inc. from the case.On November 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaintagainst Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Ocwen LoanServicing, LLC. On November 27, 2013, Intersections InsuranceServices Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC jointly filed a Motionto Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. On March 5, 2014, themotion was granted in part, and denied in part. Discovery hascommenced in the case.

J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Period in "Paldo" Case to Close August 2015----------------------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 18, 2013,Paldo Sign and Display Company ("Paldo") filed an amendedcomplaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former j2 Canadaemployee, Tyler Eyamie ("Eyamie"), as additional defendants in anexisting purported class action pending in the Northern Districtof Illinois. The amended complaint alleged violations of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois ConsumerFraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and commonlaw conversion, arising from a customer's alleged use of the j2Canada system to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. OnAugust 23, 2013, Paldo filed a second amended complaint to add asecond plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon").

The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA andconversion claims, which was granted. Paldo and Sabon seekstatutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relieffor the remaining TCPA claims. Eyamie filed a motion to dismissfor lack of personal jurisdiction, which was granted on March 11,2014. The discovery period commenced on April 17, 2014, and willclose in August 2015. The case is set for trial in late January2016.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" orthe "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through itsBusiness Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloudservices to businesses of all sizes, from individuals toenterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") tothird parties. The Digital Media Division operates a portfolio ofweb properties providing technology, gaming and lifestyle contentand an innovative data-driven platform connecting advertisers withvisitors to those properties and to visitors of third partywebsites that are part of the Digital Media Division's advertisingnetwork.

J2 GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Claims in "Jenkins" Suit---------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 16, 2013,Anthony Jenkins filed a purported class action against a j2 Globalaffiliate "carrying on business as eFax" in the Central Districtof California. An amended complaint was filed on March 18, 2014adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended complaintincludes causes of action for breach of contract, several statestatutory violations, and conversion. The claims arose either outof alleged difficulties some users encountered in canceling theireFax(R) online fax accounts or from the j2 Global affiliateallegedly being unjustly enriched and converting users' funds. Thepotential class representatives are seeking damages, attorneys'fees, interest, costs, and injunctive relief on behalf ofthemselves and a purported nationwide class of persons allegedlysimilarly situated.

On May 23, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice theplaintiffs' breach of contract, conversion, and certain statutoryclaims. Other statutory claims were dismissed without prejudice.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" orthe "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through itsBusiness Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloudservices to businesses of all sizes, from individuals toenterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") tothird parties. The Digital Media Division operates a portfolio ofweb properties providing technology, gaming and lifestyle contentand an innovative data-driven platform connecting advertisers withvisitors to those properties and to visitors of third partywebsites that are part of the Digital Media Division's advertisingnetwork.

J2 GLOBAL: Faces "Free-Vychine" Suit Over Late Fees---------------------------------------------------j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 23, 2014, AndreFree-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a purported class actionagainst a j2 Global affiliate in the Superior Court for the Stateof California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleges twostatutory violations involving the late fees levied in certaineVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking damages and injunctiverelief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class ofpersons allegedly similarly situated. The j2 Global affiliate hasnot yet filed an answer to the complaint.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" orthe "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through itsBusiness Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloudservices to businesses of all sizes, from individuals toenterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") tothird parties. The Digital Media Division operates a portfolio ofweb properties providing technology, gaming and lifestyle contentand an innovative data-driven platform connecting advertisers withvisitors to those properties and to visitors of third partywebsites that are part of the Digital Media Division's advertisingnetwork.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class actioncomplaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants whichalleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making falseand/or misleading statements concerning Company financialprojections and performance as part of its public filings andearnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.

Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that theCompany's forward looking statements, guidance and other publicstatements were false and misleading for allegedly failing todisclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) theCompany's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiringworkers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreementswith guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unableto meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno andWinx lines of products after their launch. The First AmendedComplaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the ExchangeAct by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaintsought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount aswell as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complainton February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave toreplead. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on July 8, 2014 andit set forth similar allegations to those in the First AmendedComplaint about discrepancies between internal projections andpublic forecasts and the other allegations except that the claimwith respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedlyknew it was unable to meet was eliminated.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, becausethe Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure youas to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such actionwould not have a material adverse effect on our business,financial condition or results of operations," JAKKS Pacific, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2014.

The Company is a worldwide producer and marketer of children'stoys and other consumer products, principally engaged in thedesign, development, production, marketing and distribution of itsdiverse portfolio of products.

JERKY BY ART: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Misbranding------------------------------------------------------------Jerky By Art, an Albuquerque, N.M. establishment, is recalling anundetermined amount of beef jerky products because they wereproduced without the benefit of inspection, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.In addition, the beef jerky products contain wheat and anchovies,known allergens that are not declared on the product label.

The products subject to recall are:

All vacuum-packed plastic bags of Claude's Beef Jerky with RedChile

The products, which contain the establishment number "EST. 34270"inside the USDA Mark of Inspection, were sold primarily over theinternet. Although the products were packed mostly in 4-oz bagsthey may also have been packed in bags of other sizes. There areno identifying dates or codes on any packaging. Therefore, allproducts produced prior to Sept. 12, 2014 are being recalled.

The problem was discovered during an ongoing investigation intothe establishment.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactionsdue to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about areaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers.

Media or consumers with questions about the recall should contactMr. Arthur Sandoval at (505) 262-0240.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at:http://www.AskKaren.govor via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English andSpanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET Mondaythrough Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24hours a day. For information on how to report a problem with ameat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visithttp://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settled Wage and Hour Cases in California-------------------------------------------------------------Kindred Healthcare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that four wage and hourclass action lawsuits are currently pending against the Company infederal district court for the Central District of California, andare being addressed together by the court. Each case pertains toalleged errors made by the Company with respect to regular pay andovertime pay calculations, waiting times, meal period waivers andwage statements under California law. The Company tentativelysettled this claim in June 2014, subject to finalizing settlementdetails and court approval. The Company recorded an additional$4.6 million loss provision in the second quarter of 2014 (for atotal loss reserve of $16.6 million) related to this lawsuit.

The Company is a healthcare services company that through itssubsidiaries operates TC hospitals, IRFs, nursing centers,assisted living facilities, a contract rehabilitation servicesbusiness and a home health and hospice business across the UnitedStates.

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Expects Dismissal of Ill. Wage & Hour Case--------------------------------------------------------------Kindred Healthcare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a wage and hour classaction lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of federaland state wage and hour laws is pending in federal district courtfor the Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit pertains tothe Company's previous automatic meal break deduction practice fornon-exempt employees in the Company's hospitals located outsideCalifornia. The court granted conditional class certification inpart on June 11, 2013. This lawsuit was settled on January 31,2014 by the Company's agreement to pay $0.7 million to claimantsfrom the Company's five Illinois hospitals, plaintiffs' attorney'sfees and certain administrative costs. The Company had previouslyrecorded a $0.7 million loss provision related to this lawsuit.The Company expects this lawsuit to be dismissed upon completionof the claims administration process currently underway.

The Company is a healthcare services company that through itssubsidiaries operates TC hospitals, IRFs, nursing centers,assisted living facilities, a contract rehabilitation servicesbusiness and a home health and hospice business across the UnitedStates.

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid in Pines Nursing Case Denied----------------------------------------------------------------Kindred Healthcare Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported classaction complaint was filed on January 6, 2014, in the federaldistrict court for the Southern District of Florida against theCompany and one of its subsidiaries. The lawsuit, styled PinesNursing Home, et al. v. Polaris and RehabCare Group, Inc., et al.alleges that one of the Company's subsidiaries sent "junk" faxesin violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 andthe Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint seeks statutorydamages, penalties, attorneys' fees and an injunction prohibitingsuch conduct in the future.

Subsequently, the Company filed an offer of judgment for $49,900which was accepted by the plaintiff on July 29, 2014.

No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss resulting fromthis lawsuit in excess of this amount can be made at this time.The Company continues to dispute the allegations in the complaint.

The Company is a healthcare services company that through itssubsidiaries operates TC hospitals, IRFs, nursing centers,assisted living facilities, a contract rehabilitation servicesbusiness and a home health and hospice business across the UnitedStates.

LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Suit v. FriendFinder on Appeal---------------------------------------------------------------Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that apurported class action suit was filed in December 2011, in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida("District Court") against FriendFinder Networks, Inc.("FriendFinder"), various individuals, Ladenburg and anotherbroker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinderinitial public offering. On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed itssecond amended complaint, alleging that the defendants, includingLadenburg, are liable for violations of federal securities laws.The amended complaint did not specify the amount of damagessought. In September 2013, FriendFinder filed a voluntary petitionunder Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in federal bankruptcycourt in Delaware, and in December 2013, the bankruptcy courtconfirmed the FriendFinder plan of reorganization. As a result,the plaintiff is precluded from pursuing claims againstFriendFinder.

On March 18, 2014, the District Court granted the remainingdefendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint withprejudice. The plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal order iscurrently pending. The Company believes that the claims arewithout merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

LADENBURG THALMANN: MOU in Suit v. WEMU Subject to Court Approval-----------------------------------------------------------------Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that apurported class action suit was filed in December 2012 in theSuperior Court of California for San Mateo County againstWorldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certainindividuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offeringof WEMU securities. The complaint alleges that the defendants,including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securitieslaws, and does not specify the amount of damages sought.

On January 27, 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding that, once memorialized in a settlement agreementwould be subject to court approval, resolve all claims in thecomplaint. The amount expected to be paid by Ladenburg insettlement was accrued at December 31, 2013.

LIFE ALERT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "McGreevy" Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Margaret McGreevy, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., CaseNo. 1:14-cv-07457 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2014), is broughtagainst the Defendant for failure to pay overtime for all hoursworked over 40 in a workweek

Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. is a nationwide company thatprovides safety, home security, and emergency protection servicesto the elderly and disabled.

MICHIGAN: Judge Recommends Denial of "Dunbar" Case Dismissal Bid----------------------------------------------------------------JOSEPH GREGORY DUNBAR, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PRELESNIK, et al.,Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1100, (W.D. Mich.) is a civil rightsaction brought by a state prisoner incarcerated by the MichiganDepartment of Corrections (MDOC) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section1983. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he and others"who are infected with Hepatitis C and B, as well as otherprisoners who are infected with HIV, and kidney diseases" face animminent danger to their health at the Richard A. HandlonCorrectional Facility (MTU), where MDOC officials "refuse toremedy the contaminated water which has been continuously comingout of the fixtures yellowish to dark brown with the smell of rawsewage."

The matter is before the court on defendant Cathleen Stoddard andDaniel Heyns' motion to dismiss, defendant John Prelesnik's motionto dismiss, plaintiff's motion for default judgment as todefendant John Prelesnik, and plaintiff's ex parte "motion forpreliminary injunction and restraining order".

Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., in his report andrecommendation dated September 3, 2014, a copy of which isavailable at http://is.gd/wsanfOfrom Leagle.com, recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss be denied.

He further recommended that plaintiff's motion for defaultjudgment as to defendant Warden John Prelesnik and plaintiff's exparte motion for a preliminary injunction and TRO be denied.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to remand this case, arguing thatthe Defendant filed its notice of removal more than two yearsafter Plaintiff's initial pleading in violation of the removalstatute. The Defendant objected saying the thirty-day window toremove "reopened" when the case first became removable under theClass Action Fairness Act.

The Court agreed with the Plaintiff that removal is time-barred.

A copy of Judge Rice's September 9, 2014 order is available athttp://is.gd/37BMFAfrom Leagle.com.

NII HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Second Amended Complaint------------------------------------------------------------NII Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported classaction lawsuit was filed on March 4, 2014, against the Company,NII Capital Corp. and certain of the Company's current and formerdirectors and executive officers in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of a putativeclass of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired thesecurities of the Company or NII Capital Corp. between February25, 2010 and February 27, 2014. The lawsuit is captioned In re NIIHoldings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case Number 14-CV-227.

On July 18, 2014, the parties that have been designated as thelead plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a second amended complaint,which generally alleges that the defendants made false ormisleading statements or concealed material adverse informationabout the Company's financial condition and operations inviolation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks classcertification and unspecified damages, fees and injunctive relief.The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defendthemselves in this matter.

NII Holdings Inc. provides wireless communication services underthe NextelTM brand, primarily targeted at meeting the needs ofsubscribers who use the Company's services to improve theproductivity of their businesses and subscribers who make theindividual decision to use the service for both professional andpersonal needs.

NORMAN DIRECT: Removes "Demirjian" Suit to C.D. California----------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Sevag Demirjian v. Norman Direct,LLC, Christopher Morgan, LLC, and Christopher M. Rebholz, Case No.CIVDS1411874, was removed from the Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court forthe Central District of California. The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01917 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of unfair competitionlaw, false and misleading advertising, violation of the CaliforniaLegal Remedies Act, and common law fraud, and seeks compensationfor the Plaintiffs alleged losses, treble damages, punitivedamages, and attorneys' fees.

Steven Ades and Hart Woolery filed this putative class action onMarch 15, 2013 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. DefendantOmni Hotels removed the case to the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California based on diversity ofcitizenship on April 8, 2013. Plaintiffs have since sought tosubstitute Jonathan Murphy for Woolery as class representative.

On April 29, 2013, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint(FAC). Plaintiffs alleged that when they placed their calls toOmni's toll-free telephone numbers, they were not apprised thatthe call might be recorded. Plaintiffs further allege that Omnihas a company-wide policy of recording inbound telephoneconversations with consumers without seeking permission orinforming consumers about the monitoring. Omni filed a motion forsummary judgment on July 30, 2014.

A copy of Judge Snyder's September 8, 2014 decision is availableat http://is.gd/gTvc2Afrom Leagle.com.

PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Final Settlement Approved in April 2014------------------------------------------------------------Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that apurported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court ofCalifornia County of San Diego by Daniele Riganello, who, prior tothe consummation of the merger between Pernix and Somaxon on March6, 2013 (the "Merger"), was an alleged stockholder of Somaxon(Riganello v. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL). Asecond purported class action was also filed in the court byanother alleged stockholder (Wasserstrom vs. Somaxon, et al., No.37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL). Both plaintiffs filed amendedcomplaints on January 18, 2013. The lawsuits were consolidatedinto a single action captioned In re Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).The operative complaint named as defendants Somaxon, Pernix,Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, as well as each of the former membersof Somaxon's board of directors (the "Individual Defendants").

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks anduncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting anyliability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants insuch litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")to settle such litigation. The MOU resolves the claims brought insuch litigation and provides a release and settlement by thepurported class of Somaxon's former stockholders of all claimsagainst the defendants and their affiliates and agents inconnection with the Merger. The parties executed a stipulation ofsettlement setting forth a plaintiff's fee of $185,000 on July 3,2013.

The court approved the final settlement on April 25, 2014, andPernix paid the $185,000 plaintiff's fee and $15,000 forplaintiff's legal fees on April 29, 2014. On April 25, 2014, thecourt dismissed the case with prejudice.

PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Claims Over Lipitor Deal--------------------------------------------------------------Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports thata federal judge in Trenton, N.J., has dismissed antitrust claimsagainst drug makers Pfizer and Ranbaxy over a deal the twocompanies struck to delay production of a generic version of thepopular statin drug Lipitor.

The court said drug wholesalers and retailers who sued Pfizer andRanbaxy failed to prove that the defendants engaged inanticompetitive conduct when they struck the deal that postponedthe launch of generic Lipitor. The agreement between Pfizer andRanbaxy included certain nonmonetary consideration between thosecompanies, but the plaintiffs did not show an antitrust violationbecause their pleadings did not put an estimated dollar value onthe terms, U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan of the District ofNew Jersey said In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation.

The ruling relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in FederalTrade Commission v. Actavis, decided in June 2013, which held thatsuch deals between drug companies could be deemed restraint oftrade if they involved a payment between the patent holder and thealleged infringer that was large and unjustified.

In dismissing the plaintiffs' suits in the Lipitor case,Judge Sheridan found the plaintiffs' antitrust allegations were"implausible" because they only made "broad characterizations"about the value of the consideration that Pfizer gave to Ranbaxy.

Judge Sheridan dismissed from the case six drug wholesalers thatmake direct purchases of Lipitor and eight major retailers whosell the drug. The case is still pending on behalf of a group ofsix plaintiffs who are California pharmacists. Judge Sheridansaid additional briefing was needed to determine whether theirclaims should be dismissed for the same reasons as the otherplaintiffs' claims.

The suit concerns a June 2008 agreement between Pfizer and Ranbaxythat resolved several legal disputes between the two companies,according to Sheridan's opinion. The disputes concern Ranbaxy'splans to produce generic versions of Lipitor and two other Pfizerdrugs, Caduet and Accupril. The agreement called for Ranbaxyto begin producing generic Lipitor in November 2011. Theagreement also resolved 23 lawsuits between the two companies, in13 foreign countries, relating to Lipitor. Also under theagreement, Pfizer forgave a claim against Ranbaxy for infringingits patent on Accupril and allowed it to sell generic Lipitor inforeign markets immediately.

The deal between the companies is known as a reverse paymentsettlement agreement, Judge Sheridan said. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit considered such deals prima facieevidence of unreasonable restraint of trade, while some othercircuits dismissed antitrust challenges as long as theanticompetitive effects fall within the exclusionary potential ofthe patent.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Actavis sought to strike a balancebetween the two approaches taken by appeals courts, Judge Sheridansaid. The Actavis ruling said analysis of reverse paymentsettlement agreements should consider whether the restraint atissue has the potential for great adverse effects on competition,whether there are justifications for the anticompetitiveconsequences, whether the patent holder has the market power tobring about anticompetitive harm, whether the size of anunexplained settlement suggests an intent by the patent holder tomaintain supracompetitive prices, and whether the parties couldhave settled in a way that did not involve a reverse payment.

Applying Actavis, Judge Sheridan set out to determine whether alarge and unjustified reverse payment was made. But theplaintiffs gave no basis to evaluate the value of Pfizer'sconcessions allowing Ranbaxy to market generic Lipitor in 13foreign countries and forgiving a patent infringement claim on thedrug Accupril, Judge Sheridan said.

"The lack of any foundation pervades the entire complaint," JudgeSheridan said.

Pfizer said in a statement that the company has "always believedthat the procurement and enforcement of its Lipitor patents andthe settlement of litigation relating thereto was at all timesproper and lawful. The company will continue to vigorouslyprotect and defend its intellectual property, which is vital todeveloping new medicines like Lipitor that save and enhancepatient lives."

PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Expert in Chantix MDL Seeks Documents------------------------------------------------------------Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,reports that a plaintiffs expert in the multidistrict litigationover the Chantix antismoking drug has moved to unseal courtrecords in the advance of a U.S. Food and Drug Administrationmeeting next month to consider whether warnings about suicide riskare warranted.

Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, an expert causation witness for theplaintiffs, and Thomas Moore, a drug-safety researcher who alsowas a consulting expert in the Chantix litigation, called for theunsealing of thousands of Pfizer Inc. internal documents.Both wrote about how smoking cessation treatments like Chantixwere associated with a higher incidence of depression, suicide andviolence toward other people.

They "want to ensure the public debate about the psychiatric sideeffects of Chantix includes a balanced scientific record, whichwas examined in depth in the Chantix litigation," court paperssaid. The FDA meeting is slated for Oct. 16.

New data the FDA will consider during its meeting next month ispartially sourced to Dr. Robert Gibbons, Pfizer's expert witnessin the litigation, according to Glenmullen and Moore. They havespecifically requested that documents in support of theplaintiffs' claim for punitive damages be unsealed. They arguethat the documents were sealed because they were stampedconfidential by Pfizer, not because the documents contain tradesecrets, personal information or any other type of informationthat should be legitimately kept out of the public record.

"Documents revealed in litigation often times provide the onlymean by which the playing field can be leveled between thepharmaceutical industry with its huge financial incentive tominimize risks and the public's interest in their health andsafety," the two scientists' counsel, Eric Hoaglund of McCallumHoaglund Cook & Irby in Vestavia Hills, Ala., wrote. "Thesedocuments do no public good sitting in a company's or court'sarchives."

Mr. Moore also said that Pfizer subpoenaed him for documentsrelated to his research, personal communications and publicationsabout the risks of using Chantix. He said Pfizer did so to"harass and intimidate him because of the independent drug safetyresearch he conducts. The use and potential abuse of nonpartysubpoenas in pharmaceutical litigation is also an important publicpolicy issue separate from but part of the overall objective toprovide the public with a fair and balanced record of the risksand benefits of Chantix."

The multidistrict litigation is pending in Alabama federal court.There have been 3,000 cases in the MDL, but it was down to asingle case of Aug. 15, according to court statistics.

PRICELINE GROUP: Faces Suits Related to Travel Transaction Taxes----------------------------------------------------------------The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company and certainthird-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are currentlyinvolved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified andputative class actions, brought by or against states, cities andcounties over issues involving the payment of travel transactiontaxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes,etc.). The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC,Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not allof these cases.

Generally, each complaint alleges, among other things, that theOTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant traveltransaction tax ordinance with respect to the charges andremittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. Eachcomplaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities orcounties, and at least eleven states, have initiated auditproceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than fortymunicipalities in California, which have been inactive for severalyears), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiriesrelating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additionalstate and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that theCompany is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek tocollect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Bid to Quash Subpoena in A&R Case Okayed--------------------------------------------------------------In the case, A&R BODY SPECIALTY AND COLLISION WORKS, INC., FAMILYGARAGE, INC. and THE AUTO BODY ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT onBehalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, v.PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE DIRECTINSURANCE COMPANY, CIV. NO. 3:07CV929 (WWE), (D. Conn.), non-partyHartford Fire Insurance Company moved for an order quashing asubpoena served by plaintiffs, A&R Body Specialty, Family Garageand the Auto Body Association of Connecticut, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, or, in thealternative, moved for a protective order. Plaintiffs opposedthis motion. On June 2, 2014, the Court held oral argument on thepending motion to quash.

"[T]he motion to quash or, alternatively, for a protective orderis granted on the current record," wrote Magistrate Judge Holly B.Fitzsimmons in an order dated September 9, 2014, a copy of whichis available at http://is.gd/UtXz9Afrom Leagle.com.

"This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is a discovery ruling ororder which is reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous"statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2. As such, it is anorder of the Court unless reversed or modified by the districtjudge upon motion timely made," Magistrate Judge Fitzsimmonsadded.

SEARS HOLDINGS: "Holstein" Case Returns to Kanawha County Court---------------------------------------------------------------Martin V. Holstein filed a class action in the Circuit Court ofKanawha County on May 21, 2014, alleging violations of the WestVirginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA). DefendantsSears, Roebuck and Co., Sears Holdings Corporation, and KmartCorporation removed the case on July 8, 2014.

The Plaintiff timely filed a motion to remand on August 7, 2014,arguing that the amount in controversy element is not satisfiedand therefore the district court lacks subject matterjurisdiction.

District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the plaintiff'smotion to remand in a memorandum opinion and order dated September9, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/YDPe72 from Leagle.com.

TD AMERITRADE: Sued in D.N.J. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties-------------------------------------------------------------Gerald J. Klein, on behalf of himself and all similarly situatedv. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., andFredric Tomczyk, Case No. 3:14-cv-05738 (D.N.J., September 15,2014), is brought against the Defendant for breach of fiduciaryduties in connection with self-interested routing of the Company'sclients' orders to venues which paid the maximum liquidity rebateand/or paid for order flow, irrespective of whether such routingwould optimize execution quality.

The Defendants acted as brokers and engaged in routing itsclient's orders to different venues to be executed.

TELETECH HOLDINGS: Class Action Settled for Immaterial Amount-------------------------------------------------------------TeleTech Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in the fourth quarterof 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the State ofCalifornia against a TeleTech subsidiary and Google Inc.("Google"), as co-defendants. Pursuant to its contractualcommitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify Google for costsand expenses related to the complaint. The Company settled thematter for an immaterial amount during the first quarter of 2014.

TINLEY PARK: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime---------------------------------------------------------------Audelia Santiago on behalf of herself and all other similarlysituated persons, known and unknown v. Tinley Park Hotel &Convention Center, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07138 (N.D. Ill.September 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failureto pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

TOMMY'S REDHOTS: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-----------------------------------------------------------------Rene Vargas on behalf of himself and all other similarly situatedpersons, known and unknown v. Tommy's Redhots, Inc., Tommy's/LakeIn The Hills, Ltd., Tommy's/Mchenry, Ltd., Homas Grieco,individually, and Daniel Grieco, individually, Case No. :14-cv-07144 (N.D. Ill. September 12, 2014), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked inexcess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Illinois under thetrade name Tommy's Red Hots.

The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as "Allpersons with addresses in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who weresent an initial collection letter from NSA in which the statutory1692g validation notice was printed on the reverse of the letter,in uppercase and lowercase type, among paragraphs which were notindented or spaced, and placed along other copy that wascapitalized, and the phrase "NOTICE-SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANTINFORMATION" in all capital letters was on the front of the letterwhere the underlying debt was incurred primarily for personal,family or household use, where the letter bears a date fromOctober 12, 2012 to October 4, 2013."

Under the Settlement Agreement, each of the 222 Class members willreceive a check for $100 from a $22,200 settlement fund. Anyremaining amount will be awarded cy pres to Clarifi, a nonprofitorganization dedicated to financial literacy in the DelawareValley. Without reduction of the settlement fund, as ClassRepresentative, Denise Harlan will receive an additional $2,000:$1,000 as an individual settlement sum and $1,000 as an incentivepayment. North Shore has also agreed to revise the Subject Letterto make the disputed notice of validation rights more prominent.

Under the Settlement Agreement, North Shore agrees to pay Counsel,Cary L. Flitter, Theodore E. Lorenz, and Andrew M. Milz, ofFlitter Lorenz, P.C., $44,450 in attorneys' fees and costs. NorthShore also agrees to pay the costs of notice to the Class andadministration of the Settlement Amount. This amount will notreduce the settlement fund.

TRAYLOR BROS: Sued in Wash. Over Alleged Racial Discrimination--------------------------------------------------------------Leonard Rollins, Anthony Smith, Rashad Pearson, Jarlin Diaz-Lerma,Alexander Watkins Sr., and Reginald Wright, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated v. Traylor Bros.,Inc., and Traylor/Frontier-Kemper JV, Case No. 2:14-cv-01414 (W.D.Wash., September 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants wronglyscrutinized African American Workers, treated them more harshly,failed to provide them with meaningful work or training, andwrongly dismissed African Americans Workers because of ormotivated by race and the color of their skin.

Traylor Bros., Inc. is a construction company with itsheadquarters in Evansville, Indiana.

Now, thanks to a dustup with one erstwhile client and unfavorablerulings by two judges, the firms' case against CBS is dead onarrival, and the Warner Music and Viacom cases are left withoutthe threat of a jury trial hanging over the defendants.

The CBS class action blew up, when the plaintiff -- a former DavidLetterman intern named Mallory Musallam -- filed a notice ofdiscontinuance on Sept. 10. Ms. Musallam didn't just back out ofthe suit, however: She also sent a letter to "The Late Show withDavid Letterman" in which she attacked her own lawyers andapologized desperately for bringing the case the week before.

According to the New York Daily News, Ms. Musallam wrote in theletter that "a beguiling legion of lawsuit-hungry attorneys" hadexploited her at "a weak vulnerable time." She was "hastilycoerced into a lawsuit masked in equivocal language and ambiguouspretenses," Ms. Musallam wrote.

The Warner Music and Viacom cases, on the other hand, are verymuch still alive, having each won conditional certification asFLSA collective actions earlier this year. The problem theplaintiffs lawyers face in those cases isn't a missing client --it's a missing jury.

U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in Manhattan refused on Sept. 12to grant Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown a belated request fora jury trial in the Warner Music case. The plaintiffs lawyers hadexplicitly told the court at first that they weren't seeking ajury trial, but they changed course more than six months afterfiling the lawsuit, arguing that they meant to have a jury hearthe case all along.

Warner Music Group's lawyers at Vedder Price, led by Laura Sack --lsack@vedderprice.com -- strongly opposed the request. Amongother things, Ms. Sack pointed out that the same firms had alsowaived a jury demand in a parallel case against WMG filed in statecourt, and that Ambinder and cocounsel Jeffrey Brown were hardlynovices when it came to bringing employment cases.

The judge agreed. "There is no evidence that plaintiff intended todemand a jury when the complaint was filed," Judge Gardephe wrote,"The notion that in both of these high-profile actions counselaccidentally omitted the customary jury demand is implausible."U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman reached a similar conclusion inthe Viacom case in April, refusing to allow the same plaintiffsfirms to amend their case management plan to add a jury trial.Vedder Price also represents the defendants in that case.

The fate of all the intern cases, meanwhile, most likely hinges ontwo consolidated appeals now pending at the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit. A panel is weighing whether unpaidinterns at Hearst Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc.qualify as employees under state and federal labor laws, whichwould entitle them to back pay and potential damages.

Rachel Bien of Outten & Golden is representing the plaintiffs atthe Second Circuit. Neal Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com-- of Hogan Lovells represents Fox along with lawyers at ProskauerRose. Hearst is relying on an in-house team led by deputy generalcounsel Jonthan Donnellan.

WILHELMINA INT'L: Bid to Dismiss "Shanklin" Case Under Advisement-----------------------------------------------------------------Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on October 24,2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by formerWilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "ShanklinLitigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries WilhelminaInternational and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "WilhelminaSubsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State SupremeCourt (New York County) by the same lead counsel who representedplaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by LouisaRaske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the ShanklinLitigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment andare alleged to arise out of matters relating to those mattersinvolved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling andreporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of modelimages. Other parties named as defendants in the ShanklinLitigation include other model management companies, advertisingfirms, and certain advertisers.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends tovigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries. On January 6, 2014,the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the AmendedComplaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a causeof action upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, andother defendants have also filed motions to dismiss.

On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigationwrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing thecase to its attention, generally describing the claims assertedtherein against the model management defendants, and stating thatthe case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge'sletter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the RaskeLitigation, which dismissed that case.

The defendants' motions to dismiss were orally argued on July 28,2014, at which time the court took the motions under advisement.The court has stayed all discovery in the case pending resolutionof these motions.

The Company's primary business is fashion model management, whichis headquartered in New York City. The Company's predecessor wasfounded in 1967 by Wilhelmina Cooper, a renowned fashion model,and is one of the oldest, best known and largest fashion modelmanagement companies in the world. Since its founding, it hasgrown to include operations located in Los Angeles and Miami, aswell as a growing network of licensees comprising leading modelingagencies in various local markets across the U.S., as well as inThailand, Dubai, Vancouver and Tokyo. The Company providestraditional, full-service fashion model and talent managementservices, specializing in the representation and management ofmodels, entertainers, artists, athletes and other talent tovarious customers and clients, including retailers, designers,advertising agencies and catalog companies.

In a memorandum-decision and order dated September 9, 2014, a copyof which is available at http://is.gd/nInuGgfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn denied Well Fargo's Motion asmoot, as well as the Defendants' Joint Motion in its entirety.

XPRESSIGNS INC: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-----------------------------------------------------------------Agustin G. Herrera, individually and on behalf of other employeessimilarly situated v. Xpressigns, Inc., and Aslam A. Shariff,individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07186 (N.D. Ill., September 15,2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to payovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Xpressigns, Inc. is a one stop sign shop doing business within theState of Illinois.

YELP! INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Levitt" Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Yelp! Inc. provides an online forum on which its users expressopinions as to services ranging from dog walkers to taco trucks.Boris Levitt, Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc., John Mercurio,and Dr. Tracy Chan, are small business owners who allege that Yelpextorted or attempted to extort advertising payments from them bymanipulating user reviews and penning negative reviews of theirbusinesses. The business owners filed a class-action lawsuitagainst Yelp for violations of California's Unfair CompetitionLaw, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.,civil extortion, and attempted civil extortion. The districtcourt dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed thedistrict court's judgment in an opinion dated September 2, 2014.The Ninth Circuit said the facts and legal theories alleged in thebusiness owners' complaint are insufficient to make out a primafacie case of unlawful or unfair business practices against Yelp.The business owners' Third Amended Complaint fails to state aclaim under California's unfair competition laws, and fails tosufficiently allege extortion or attempted extortion, the NinthCircuit added.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.